Update from Jo Phoenix

I counted four THE articles about this verdict. Hopefully, VCs and their legal teams are paying attention.

I did an OU module a few years ago and TBH the impression I had at every stage was that the course itself and all my interactions with the organisation were structured in accordance with the requirements of a money-making business, not with any genuine concern for intellectual activity (though of course most of the tutors themselves did try and teach with integrity).
So I am sure that the senior decision makers will regard the primary significance of this reputational disaster to be commercial. Perhaps it was those same commercial concerns that caused them to fail so utterly in their responsibility to provide an intellectually responsible learning environment, in which thought and evidence takes priority over fashionable ideology.

Bloody brilliant! Many congratulations!

Jut a thought: given the detail laid out in this in this judgement, would it be possible for Jo Phoenix to pursue an individual action for defamation against a particular individual or individuals? The tribunal judge has really laid the ground work here for at least obtaining apologies-via-settlement for some atrocious behaviour. The 'racist uncle' comment particularly stands out for me. Is that not defamatory?

It's one thing for Tim Blackman to apologise on behalf of the OU. I'm just wondering what legal remedies might exist for holding the individuals to account, given the detailed, excoriating judgement naming names and describing behaviours and comments.

Will the OU care about being in the DM?

Oh yes.

I was an OU employee. OU students are not the captured teen cohort. They are politically diverse, older, often with kids. Many of them will read the DM. Their potential students will read the DM. Those academics might scoff at the DM but marketing and recruitment won't be.

Jo Phoenix vs the Open University.

Please someone suggest to the Mr. Bates TV producers they make this into a programme/ mini series.

I did attend the hearing when those named above gave evidence. I don’t think these self-righteous OU witnesses realised quite how badly they actually came across. It is there to see in the judgement though.

I wonder if for those academics, the lack of a video record is both a blessing and a curse.

Drake and Bowes-Catton have authorial claims to glory for this, of course, in which they detailed their tactics for contributing to the resignation of a previous VC of the OU:

In discussing the events leading up to the resignation of the former Open University Vice Chancellor in April 2018, we focus on the enactment of a form of resistance against proposals for the university through a WhatsApp group, enabling rapid information exchange, discussion of tactics and concrete planning for action. We suggest our group – ‘the Hive’ – was unusual because, first, it countered the politically quiescent trend in academia to comply (at least outwardly) with neoliberalisation, and/or only to write about it, as opposed to mounting challenges.

Bowes-Catton, H., Brewis, J., Clarke, C., Drake, D. H., Gilmour, A., & Penn, A. (2020). Talkin’ ’bout a revolution? From quiescence to resistance in the contemporary university. Management Learning, 51(4), 378-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507620925633

They're like a bunch of playground bullies out to target someone who they know is cleverer than they are and who they dislike for this reason; but the shocking and unacceptable thing is they're paid for by the government and by student fees.

Above all the way they behaved was so outrageously unprofessional and would not be allowed in most (much less prestigious) workplaces. Really they should lose their jobs or at least have some kind of sanction, but no doubt they won't.

I did attend the hearing when those named above gave evidence. I don’t think these self-righteous OU witnesses realised quite how badly they actually came across. It is there to see in the judgement though.

The most disdainful of the OU witnesses in court (imo) was Keogh (he was dismissive of the Forstater judgement!). I thought Downes came across as pathetic - as I think the judgement, albeit witheringly, reflects. The arrogance of Bowes-Catton and Williams I found quite shocking. But Drake - I thought she was a vile individual who clearly isn’t as clever as she thinks she is. Westmarland seemed to me to be not just dishonest (as highlighted by the judgement) but also a coward - but all of them appeared in thrall to Drake.

Unfortunately I don’t think any of them have the ability to genuinely reflect on the judgement and see themselves as clearly as the independent tribunal did. But the ET judge knew that and set this out in paragraph 22!

I’m so pleased Jo won so emphatically but also sorry she had to work with such a bunch of bullies too weak to face any reasoned academic arguments! Jock Young is no doubt spinning (in support of Jo!).

This is my take on it too. The Mail haven't gone digging up dirt here, they are reporting on a court case, the evidence submitted & the judgement of that court case.

Perhaps the daily mail test should be expanded to "would I want to have to defend this in a court of law and then have it all reported in the Mail?"

I had a read of the DM piece - honestly it’s a pretty tame reporting of the tribunal and the judgement. The judgement is public record, these all put their names out there already by signing an open letter. Yes, the DM has found their (presumably publicly posted) pictures and published them, but it’s certainly not a character assassination. I’m sure they do feel victimised but I certainly don’t think they have been.

These academics haven't been tried by media though. Their employer has been tried by employment tribunal and the DM is engaging in public interest reporting of a recently-concluded legal case.

After the way they behaved towards Jo and their behaviour on the Witness Stand my sympathy for them for being featured in the Daily Mail is nil.

Alas, we may never know. I don’t think I can recall any sincere apologies from non-trans academic TRAs for the errors of their ways.

Should have been a total 'are we the baddies?' moment. I'd love to know what they're saying now to each other. Are they retconning it so that Jo and the judge are in the wrong? And they said what they said on the stand because..... transphobia (which means never having to say you're sorry).

I don’t think they ever expected to be on any kind of witness stand. Must have been a shock to the system.

From all the weaselling on the witness stand they do know they were in the wrong otherwise they'd have been proud to own their behaviour.

Actually, as long as the reporting isn't abusive, I think it is in our interest to know; after all, they've breached the law with their vile bullying and harassment campaign, then lied to the court. To me, there's a definite public interest in finding out that they've been dealt with, or otherwise.

If they are disciplined, others who may want to behave similarly will, if they've any sense, be discouraged by it.

Yes I don't want to see these incredible discredited bullies humiliated via the press. That's just not cricket. I'd be pleased if their employer dealt with it quite harshly but it's none of my business really.

Agree @SinnerBoy public shaming isn’t suddenly brilliant because it’s happening to people we disagree with.

I doubt that what happens to the named individuals will be public - and that’s probably right. There’s also a lot of staff who were involved in the campaign against Prof Phoenix and the GCRN who weren’t named in the judgment. The general approach I’m sure will be made public but not this is what happened to so and so.

The academic credibility of all the witnesses is shot anyway.

@SinnerBoy By “see the error of their ways” I mean I’d like them to realise for themselves what they’ve done. Their refusal to have done this before now (i.e. before it got to a grievance) is what’s ultimately lead to the Mail-outing. Humiliating them in the Mail is, as you say, is being no better than them (much as there is a dose of schadenfreude in my reaction to it) and will just feed into the idea that they’re actually in the right.

SidewaysOtter · Today 14:52

Much as I would like those who bullied Jo to see the error of their ways I suspect they will see themselves as martyrs to the cause, nobly taking one for Team Right Side of History and being victimised by the right wing via the Mail.

It is tempting to say, "Well, they damned well deserve it," but then we'd be no better than them. I think the perpetrators ought to have their employment looked at, surely they're guilty of gross misconduct? Does anyone know if the OU can be made to discipline them, if they decide not to bother?

It may also make other bullies hesitate and wonder whether they want to stand behind their choices on the front pages. So far it's been pretty consequence free.

But yes, as sauce for the goose is never sauce for the gander I'll expect the wails and fainting couches about the trauma when it's done to someone who matters. As opposed to when they do it to someone else and that's ok because they deserved it.

The double standards of entitlement and assigned humanity/standards of behaviour is also a very helpful aspect of this political lobby to get out and examine in public.

I suppose what the DM test does potentially change is that wider culture. The OU are probably going to find that their supine tolerance of bullying by those on TRSOH was an expensive mistake; other institutions will note.